GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation allowance in respect of a block of asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall be made to the written down value of such block of assets as on the 1st day of April, 2019 in the prescribed manner, if the option

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA vs. THE KARAD URBAN CO. OP. BANK LTD KARAD, KARAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation be allowed as expenditure while computing taxable income, clearly amounts to an attempt to interpret/challenge by the appellant-department to the said instruction which has been issued by the CBDT u/s 119(2)(a) of the Act. III.I with due respect & utmost humbleness, please allow us to place on record that CBDT instructions are totally binding upon every Revenue

GURU KRIPA SEVA ASHYRAM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 139 of the Act is condoned. (ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form no. 10B for years prior to AY 2018-19, the Commissioners of Income-tax are authorized to admit such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioners will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form

GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation of Rs.33,00,69,972/-. However, since after making the above additions and after allowing the accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act to the extent of 15% of gross receipts at Rs.73,63,65,615/-, the net surplus was Nil for which the Assessing Officer determined the taxable income at Nil. 3. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Exemption

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and whether the assessee could claim the said deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and whether the assessee could claim the said deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and whether the assessee could claim the said deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and whether the assessee could claim the said deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and whether the assessee could claim the said deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and whether the assessee could claim the said deduction

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10 are allowed and for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1805 To 1811/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Central Circle, Kolhapur …. Vs. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 240/B, Mohite House, Gen. Thorat Marg, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tarabai Park, Kolhapur Pan: Aadcm6281H

119(2) of the Act being sought from CBDT for such delay, can the assessee be held to entitle to claim the deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. The second issue is in relation to additional income offered in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act and whether the assessee could claim the said deduction

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation for set off in the subsequent years. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred by the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) and we agree with the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this 6 Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court

PUSPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

depreciation on the car, he submits that no additional ground of appeal was raised before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, it cannot be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The first ground of appeal relates to the disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of any exempt

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

section 119 of the Act, the CBDT is entitled to issue Circulars to explain or tone down the rigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of its provisions. These circulars have the force of law and are binding on the income tax authorities, though they cannot be enforced adversely against the assessee. Normally, these circulars cannot be ignored

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 119 of the Act, the CBDT is entitled to issue Circulars to explain or tone down the rigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of its provisions. These circulars have the force of law and are binding on the income tax authorities, though they cannot be enforced adversely against the assessee. Normally, these circulars cannot be ignored

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHARAD NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

119 of act which are binding on the authorities in the administration of the Act, it is a beneficial power given to the Board for proper administration of fiscal law so that undue hardship may not be caused to the assessee and the fiscal laws may be correctly applied. Further a similar issue was raised about interest accrued